National Competency Standards for Registered Nurse

Position Statement Critique
This assessment requires students to demonstrate that they can critique and provide
constructive feedback. Students are to provide a structured critique of the provided paper.
Framework (guide only)

  1. Is the position statement structured? Does it have an introduction and a conclusion that
    clearly states the position?
  2. Does the position statement relate to the topic?
  3. Does the position statement demonstrate adequately the links to the National
    Competency Standards for Registered Nurse?
  4. Are the references used to support the position statement current and credible (i.e.
    evidence), why or why not? (EG. – REF. OLDER THEN 5 YEAR OLD IS NOT
  5. Do you think the author eliminated any important information (i.e. evidence) in
    stating their position? If so, please refer to these evidence sources in your critique.
  6. Remember when giving feedback it must be constructive regardless of whether it is
    positive or negative feedback.


The introduction of the article expresses concerns related to the fact that there has not
been significant funding for research in the last few decades. The introduction begins with an
introductory hook that introduces the need for recent data in nursing research. The author
however laments that such research is not available due to the lack of commitment to support
institutions that conduct such research. The article expresses concern over the lack of availability
of resources to support research. This concern can be felt greatly by the number of points
brought out to justify the need for research yet the funding for such research apparently being

unavailable. The paper is very ethical in the presentation of findings as no names, institutions or
parties are directly mentioned (Koonrungsesomboon, Laothavorn & Karbwang, 2016).
Analysis of Topic
The topic chosen for the article is inappropriately phrased. The phrasing should be more
or less, ‘Resource pulling to fund nursing research in the next five years.’ Conciseness of the
topic should enable it tackle the message without appearing to be a topic sentence. However, the
concept of the research is to justify funding for nursing research. The basis of the paper is thus
satiable and justifiable.
Main points discussed
The writer brings out the points about 3.1 nurses being encouraged and to some extend
are required to conduct further research in their fields. The author also brings out the point on
nursing research requiring a lot of population samples to work with. There is also need for
permissions to be granted and various permit documents to be acquired. It brings out the need as
it exists from the nursing perspective. According to Wertheimer (2015) research ought to be
representative of a particular scope or need that addresses a significant societal concern.
About References used
The author is also updated with the references used. The oldest of the references dates to
2008 but there are ample references from 2013 and 2015. This makes the work recently
researched and very relevant to the current situation on funding for nursing research. The
referencing is however short of sufficient evidence from sources. The sources used may be
enough for such a short essay but the in-text citing in the paper falls short of a research of such a

caliber. Chwang (2014) believes that the sources used in a research paper determine the
credibility of the research to a great extend.
A research will likely draw the attention of the audience and make the final presentation
in the concluding note. The conclusion has to be well-placed and with ample hook-notes to
capture the reader (Baker, McQuilling & King, 2016). The concluding note of this particular
research is the encouragement for society to embrace, support and fund research. The author
however seems to have eliminated a lot of information concerning research statistics and how
they would have changed the scope of the research field of nursing. Credible journals and
magazine sources make a research paper more viable than do website sources (Barker, Rattihalli
& Field, 2016).


Baker, H. B., McQuilling, J. P., & King, N. M. (2016). Ethical considerations in tissue
engineering research: Case studies in translation. Methods, 99(Regenerative Medicine),

Barker, L., Rattihalli, R. R., & Field, D. (2016). Symposium: research: How to write a good
research grant proposal. Paediatrics And Child Health, 26105-109.

Chwang, E. (2014). Shared Vulnerabilities in Research. American Journal Of Bioethics, 14(12),
Koonrungsesomboon, N., Laothavorn, J., & Karbwang, J. (2016). Review Article: Ethical
considerations and challenges in first-in-human research. Translational
Wertheimer, A. (2015). The Social Value Requirement Reconsidered. Bioethics, 29(5), 301-308.